review-python
Installation
SKILL.md
Backend Code Review
Hard gates (sequence)
Advance only when each pass condition is objectively satisfied (prevents linter-owned false positives and ungrounded findings):
| Gate | Pass condition |
|---|---|
| G1 — Diff scope | Step 1 command has been run; the changed .py paths are enumerated in writing (list may be empty — if empty, state that explicitly and do not invent Python findings). |
| G2 — Linters before manual style/type | For ruff and mypy: either no project config exists for that tool, or it was run on the changed files and you captured pass/fail (exit code or clear tool output). Do not add manual style or type findings for rules those tools already enforce when configured. |
| G3 — Protocol and base skills | The review-verification-protocol, python-code-review, and fastapi-code-review skills are loaded before Step 6 substantive review. |
| G4 — Evidence per issue | Step 7 checks are satisfied for each reported issue before it appears in the final list (re-read source, search references for “unused”, confirm framework handling for “missing”, verify syntax against current docs). |
| G5 — Output contract | Findings use sequential numbering, every issue has FILE:LINE, and the Verdict follows Step 8 (Critical/Major only block; Minor/Informational do not). |
Arguments
--parallel: If the agent supports subagents, run a specialized subagent per technology area (otherwise reviews run sequentially with identical output)- Path: Target directory (default: current working directory)